We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with two kids.If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

You asked for a poll, and this is the next best thing..! I tallied it for you. Please open attachment as I can not figure out how to insert an image.

Note: This is for a population of approximately N=178; for:Of persons on MMM responding with their MBTI type. (e.g., note that I did not post my type, although I am personally very interested in MBTI.)Tally of as June 22, 2015

"splits" e.g., INTJ / INFJ were tallied as 1/2 point for each of two types.Over half of respondants took an on-line test, which do have somewhat to a lot less "precision", but good enough for a fun thread here.

You don't need to read the rest of this, the chart attached is the cool stuff.... but here is my analysis of how the two MBTI approaches would interpret this.

Meyer's Primary Function Analysis -- would review it like this:

Intuition Wins

LOTS of people that like using their Intuition to think about / research / strategize and create NEW IDEAS. This group does not conform as readily as other types to tradition and collective "norms" for roles.

The results indicate that persons with the dominant function of Introverted Intuition (INJ) are 4-5X present in higher numbers than the standard population. INTJ / INFJ are 56% of the responses, and both have the same Meyers Dominiant Function, Introverted Intuition, which is essentially pondering new innovative ideas, plans and strategies on one's own (e.g., not talking it over with a group).

ISTJ's are here because they (and ISFJ's) are terrific with details, maintaining progress, creating / completing lists, and naturally, among the best with Budgets. ISTJ's are higher participants than standard population because they tend to like organizing money and item details / data, while ISFJ's prefer details about people, like birthdays and spousal names and likes, so may or may not be here, depending on their values and goals..

ENFP and ENTP are the Extroverted Intuition types -- e.g., often observed talking about out loud about new ideas. Both very much like exploring new ideas... though these types may not persist on the forum for as many months before moving on.

The INTP's have a dominant of introverted thinking (logical ones, those), but also have Extraverted Intuition as their secondary functions.

ENFJ's and ENTJ's have Introverted Intuition as their secondary trait, so fit right in with the INTJ and INFJ's, as they, too, like to think (on their own) about new strategies and ways to move ahead.

Keirsey's Temprament Theory would break it down like this:(% are total of the N=178 population)

I think these results show that the MBTI, which is a SELF-SELECTED personality type tool, is very valuable at predicting what activities people will self-select into. (such as a MMM forum on early retirement and new ways to pursue personal finance). Yep, this is only one 'case' but wow, the results / statistical significance of this one is very strong.

It used to be a rare specimen, apparently. In the self-selected groups like you find here, it's super common.

That poll just asked if you were an INTJ or not (no other types, just a yes/no, you can click the link above the quote to go to it), and there 75% answered yes, so fits quite well with your results.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 10:40:02 PM by arebelspy »

Logged

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with two kids.If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

I don't think many INTJ's would be on my daughter's fan fiction and poetry writers site, which has a large group....Pinterest would get a LOT of ISFJ's and ESFJ's.There are some excellent photography / artist sites where people post their work, that may attract more of the SP's that are missing here, etc. etc.

You never know until you try! I'd never even heard of Myers-Briggs until joining this forum...curiousity piqued, I took a test and enjoyed reading about the various personality traits I previously saw as my own oddball quirks are actually shared by others :)

If you've ever been tested and know your result, please vote. If not, please don't guess... it's very easy for people to feel that they identify with a certain description, but that doesn't make it so. You should go through the formal test before drawing conclusions (many people are at least slightly surprised!)

I used to score INTJ for myer-briggs (first test 2012 last test 2014), and it agreed with my logical side, which slotted in with ERE and Mr money mustache thinking but I never felt comfortable relating to the engineers (software programming or otherwise on this site who tested accordingly) - Whilst I like planning. organisation and logic (I have worked in the policing/military world) etc I don't like following through as so many bureaucratical (sp?) rules ensue (it did my head in that societal rules aren't black and white), hence my relief when I tested INTP today.

I used to score INTJ for myer-briggs (first test 2012 last test 2014), and it agreed with my logical side, which slotted in with ERE and Mr money mustache thinking but I never felt comfortable relating to the engineers (software programming or otherwise on this site who tested accordingly) - Whilst I like planning. organisation and logic (I have worked in the policing/military world) etc I don't like following through as so many bureaucratical (sp?) rules ensue (it did my head in that societal rules aren't black and white), hence my relief when I tested INTP today.

This is similar to me. I do like the planning and organizing aspects of things. I have more trouble with the follow through. Once I dream up the great idea, I falter in putting it into practice. I start to lose interest in the fine details once I've figured out how to solve a problem.

See my start of the Class of 2015 thread and the fact that I have not chosen a FIRE date yet as a prime example. ;-)

I also start tracking my expenses every year and create a nice new spreadsheet and all, then by mid-year I realize I have stopped tracking expenses and have fallen behind and beat myself up over not updating the spreadsheet.

I am also either INTP or ENTP (depending on my mood). I will *NEVER* be a J - that is for sure. Just gives me the creeps thinking about it...

I used to score INTJ for myer-briggs (first test 2012 last test 2014), and it agreed with my logical side, which slotted in with ERE and Mr money mustache thinking but I never felt comfortable relating to the engineers (software programming or otherwise on this site who tested accordingly) - Whilst I like planning. organisation and logic (I have worked in the policing/military world) etc I don't like following through as so many bureaucratical (sp?) rules ensue (it did my head in that societal rules aren't black and white), hence my relief when I tested INTP today.

INTJ's don't typically like bureaucracy either, except as "knowing the rules to strategize around them / break them". The engineers you indicate are more likely ISTJ's... also a very common type for engineers, who play by the rules very well indeed to get ahead.

I do like the planning and organizing aspects of things. I have more trouble with the follow through. Once I dream up the great idea, I falter in putting it into practice. I start to lose interest in the fine details once I've figured out how to solve a problem.

I also start tracking my expenses every year and create a nice new spreadsheet and all, then by mid-year I realize I have stopped tracking expenses and have fallen behind and beat myself up over not updating the spreadsheet.

.... I will *NEVER* be a J SJ - that is for sure. Just gives me the creeps thinking about it...

FYI --All J's seem to be great at making lists or plans, but SJ's excel at tracking / crossing them off. See my edit above...

Daisy, nice to hear I am not alone - I also draw up intricate financial spreadsheets then neglect to enter the data. Overall; doing the research drawing the spreadsheets and subscribing to ERE has helped me financially I must admit.

Goldielocks thanks for the input which clarifies things - I need to do some more reading on the type and work out whats going on there - I did fire from the hip with my first post.

After reading this thread I was intrigued & did an online test. Not hugely surprisingly (for this thread) I'm another INTJ, another female INTJ FWIW. Today at work I sent a link around my team & everyone did it at the same time, 3/4 were INTJ! That includes my line manager and the 1 person I manage. A nice bonding moment for us all & it may explain why we're such a kickass team! The other guy was a ENTP.

I've always been frugal and usually I can work for a year, then quit for a year and do what I want. But be able to quit forever, and at a young age, would be even better!

I alternate between Idealist and Champion, fully realized in my two hobby jobs/loves: Writer and Film Director. I love alone time, but I love being on (my own) set and encouraging actors/crew, creating a memory of an incredible time when we got together and made a movie.

I've been a MMM reader for 4 years, and a lurker for as long, but the only reason I'm active on the forums right now is that I'm working a boring job. :) Otherwise I am running around in the real world.

ISTJFor those questioning the validity of these tests, it largely depends on where you fall on the spectrum for each. If you're toward the middle, of the spectrum between several categories, the test is probably meaningless. If you score heavily toward one or the other for each letter, chances are it'll nail your personality or aspects of it. First did the assessment in college; then and every time taken since I've been 70%+on each characteristic, with a few being 90+%. Needless to say, it nails my personality.

Just because we share some common personality traits (for example, more engineers than Yahoo! comments has, proportionally) doesn't make those personality traits significant for describing relations to the real world, and by forcibly describing people as X or Y, it pigeonholes real understanding. People are more complex, and on a spectrum, than "Introvert" or "Extrovert" and the other binary options.

If you can't watch a video, how about an article I posted 8 months ago:

The Myers-Briggs test is based on personality types developed in the 1940s that have little connection to any real data. More problematic, though, is that it classifies personalities by a binary preference for a particular trait. In reality, however, most people exist on a spectrum between the two and can vary between them from week to week.

It can be amusing to look at, but don't take it too seriously, basically. Something to keep in mind. :)

Logged

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with two kids.If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

I can't watch the video right now, so can't comment, but here is my common sense, basic question:If Meyers Briggs is meaningless, then how can so many ISTJ's be self accumulating on this site?

For example, I bet that if we took an astrology sign poll, we would not see any consistency whatsoever... so, why such a statistical anomaly with MBTI unless there was some foundation to it...?

Astrology is based off of birth date, so it will be fairly evenly distributed for the 12 months or follow some pattern in human birth.

You find people on the internets with their introvert rating because they are alone on a computer taking a test which asks them how they "gain energy" or some form of that phrasing. Well environment influences people, we've known this. So they will tend to score more strong on the introvert side.

We do exist on that spectrum though and it is better to view it that way not only for ourselves but understanding others. You may never know what will get someone to come out of their proverbial shell but that is a clear move from introvert towards extrovert when they do.

It's cute, it's just not particularly real or actually useful. It's touted in company based training for whatever reason (I personally suspect that consultants are always 25 years behind on basic human psychology). That's usually how most people get wind of the concepts.

Also speaking of astrology the write-ups on people who take the test smack of the same vague language so that people will respond to it with the whole "WOW that describes me so well!!!".

You find people on the internets with their introvert rating because they are alone on a computer taking a test which asks them how they "gain energy" or some form of that phrasing. Well environment influences people, we've known this. So they will tend to score more strong on the introvert side.

I didn't take my Myers=Briggs online. I took mine in a psychiatrist's office. She definitely didn't think that it was bullshit, and it nailed my personality.

You find people on the internets with their introvert rating because they are alone on a computer taking a test which asks them how they "gain energy" or some form of that phrasing. Well environment influences people, we've known this. So they will tend to score more strong on the introvert side.

I didn't take my Myers=Briggs online. I took mine in a psychiatrist's office. She definitely didn't think that it was bullshit, and it nailed my personality.

Cool. Doesn't invalidate that it was a made up test by not psychiatrists.

Just because we share some common personality traits (for example, more engineers than Yahoo! comments has, proportionally) doesn't make those personality traits significant for describing relations to the real world, and by forcibly describing people as X or Y, it pigeonholes real understanding. People are more complex, and on a spectrum, than "Introvert" or "Extrovert" and the other binary options.

If you can't watch a video, how about an article I posted 8 months ago:

The Myers-Briggs test is based on personality types developed in the 1940s that have little connection to any real data. More problematic, though, is that it classifies personalities by a binary preference for a particular trait. In reality, however, most people exist on a spectrum between the two and can vary between them from week to week.

It can be amusing to look at, but don't take it too seriously, basically. Something to keep in mind. :)

Thanks, I read the article and still refute it. :-)

As to classifying people, yes we are all special, bu grouping and classifying is what we do for scientific and statistical study and provides a lot of meaning, understanding and value.

Animal kingdoms, human eras, boomers vs millenials, all those medical studies, shoppers habits, all require lumping things or people into groups then contrast and compare then learn.

I agree that any classification system will have internal flaws, by a good system can provide a lot of value. MBTI has shown itself to be much more viable than many other systems.

Just because we share some common personality traits (for example, more engineers than Yahoo! comments has, proportionally) doesn't make those personality traits significant for describing relations to the real world, and by forcibly describing people as X or Y, it pigeonholes real understanding. People are more complex, and on a spectrum, than "Introvert" or "Extrovert" and the other binary options.

If you can't watch a video, how about an article I posted 8 months ago:

The Myers-Briggs test is based on personality types developed in the 1940s that have little connection to any real data. More problematic, though, is that it classifies personalities by a binary preference for a particular trait. In reality, however, most people exist on a spectrum between the two and can vary between them from week to week.

It can be amusing to look at, but don't take it too seriously, basically. Something to keep in mind. :)

Thanks, I read the article and still refute it. :-)

As to classifying people, yes we are all special, bu grouping and classifying is what we do for scientific and statistical study and provides a lot of meaning, understanding and value.

Animal kingdoms, human eras, boomers vs millenials, all those medical studies, shoppers habits, all require lumping things or people into groups then contrast and compare then learn.

I agree that any classification system will have internal flaws, by a good system can provide a lot of value. MBTI has shown itself to be much more viable than many other systems.

I question viability when its formation was based on no evidence. The mentioning of astrology above is an apt comparison. To call someone an INTJ is just as useful as someone identifying as a Taurus.

I question viability when its formation was based on no evidence. The mentioning of astrology above is an apt comparison. To call someone an INTJ is just as useful as someone identifying as a Taurus.

The Myers-Briggs wasn't based upon no evidence, it was based upon statistical evidence. The Myers-Briggs was based upon the same kind of associative statistical science that evolved into what we, today, call "profiling". The same methods that tell us that the typical serial killer is a single white male in his late 30's with neurotic attachment issues and a childhood trauma. The science doesn't say that every loner white boy that has traumatic loss as a child will become a serial killer by age 40, nor does it say that a black girl won't.

You find people on the internets with their introvert rating because they are alone on a computer taking a test which asks them how they "gain energy" or some form of that phrasing. Well environment influences people, we've known this. So they will tend to score more strong on the introvert side.

I didn't take my Myers=Briggs online. I took mine in a psychiatrist's office. She definitely didn't think that it was bullshit, and it nailed my personality.

Cool. Doesn't invalidate that it was a made up test by not psychiatrists.

All tests are "made up", and the fact that actual psychiatrists use it as a valid tool says more than the fact that the two primary developers of the test were not psychiatrists. The test may yet be dropped by psychiatry; for it's imprecision, for for quackery, or whatever; it is not a hard science after all. That doesn't mean that credit isn't due, nor that the test is useless at predicting some behaviors. The Myers-Briggs, and other techniques, are even taught to my homeschooled teenagers (and not by me, at a co-op; by a SAHM with a psychology degree of some form) in her "Who Am I?" course. The idea being, if they better understand themselves, they might better understand their own behavioral weaknesses, including how they are perceived by others. This is a very useful skill in any corporate environment. If it's done nothing else for me, my own typing of INTP has helped me understand how my own quirks are interpreted by others.

LOL, there have been some pretty weird ideas in the past by psychologists. I don't think that we can trust that they are always (or even often?) right. Perhaps just "usually helpful"...

Psychology is a very new field, relatively speaking, with only a few areas well studied even today. Look at all the emerging studies on happiness, a pretty new topic for this field, overall.

That's true, but in order to discredit a personality test, you aim to discredit an entire profession that uses it? Despite it's vagueness, even you would have to admit that the Myers-Briggs isn't random.

You find people on the internets with their introvert rating because they are alone on a computer taking a test which asks them how they "gain energy" or some form of that phrasing. Well environment influences people, we've known this. So they will tend to score more strong on the introvert side.

I didn't take my Myers=Briggs online. I took mine in a psychiatrist's office. She definitely didn't think that it was bullshit, and it nailed my personality.

Cool. Doesn't invalidate that it was a made up test by not psychiatrists.

All tests are "made up", and the fact that actual psychiatrists use it as a valid tool says more than the fact that the two primary developers of the test were not psychiatrists. The test may yet be dropped by psychiatry; for it's imprecision, for for quackery, or whatever; it is not a hard science after all. That doesn't mean that credit isn't due, nor that the test is useless at predicting some behaviors. The Myers-Briggs, and other techniques, are even taught to my homeschooled teenagers (and not by me, at a co-op; by a SAHM with a psychology degree of some form) in her "Who Am I?" course. The idea being, if they better understand themselves, they might better understand their own behavioral weaknesses, including how they are perceived by others. This is a very useful skill in any corporate environment. If it's done nothing else for me, my own typing of INTP has helped me understand how my own quirks are interpreted by others.

But it's not valid. Whether psychology is a hard science or not is irrelevant to the matter. The test is useless at predicting some behaviors. Did you not read the links? Essentially any particular person is really somewhere along a spectrum at any particular point in time, they may not be at the same point depending on their circumstances between tests. So what use is the test (assuming any validity) unless you're taking it to find out where you are at this instant?

What your children are being taught and by whom doesn't matter. They can still be taught things that aren't real or true.

Being typed has little to do with understanding yourself. Understanding yourself requires self awareness and the ability to look at yourself in as objective of a manner as possible. Being assigned arbitrary categories may make you feel like you're fulfilling the first section of that but given you actually are not that arbitrary category but are a mutable collection of feelings and thoughts, in which the identification of and understanding how they arise is truer understanding, means Myers-Briggs is BS.

I'm a bit gung-ho on this matter because it's the equivalent of people saying the sun moves around the earth. Present them evidence otherwise and the response becomes, well it's still useful right? It explains what I see right? Yeah (not really) and yeah; but the pursuit of science (soft or hard [giggity]) is about developing more accurate models to describe the reality we see. The Myers-Briggs is not accurate, it should be abandoned. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die

LOL, there have been some pretty weird ideas in the past by psychologists. I don't think that we can trust that they are always (or even often?) right. Perhaps just "usually helpful"...

Psychology is a very new field, relatively speaking, with only a few areas well studied even today. Look at all the emerging studies on happiness, a pretty new topic for this field, overall.

That's true, but in order to discredit a personality test, you aim to discredit an entire profession that uses it? Despite it's vagueness, even you would have to admit that the Myers-Briggs isn't random.

Moonshadow, just the opposite, that just because a psychologist did not create it does not mean it is hocus pocus . In fact, in the 60's and 70's those psychologists were all about correcting abnormal behaviour, so keeping them out of MBTI is a good thing.

Matchweed, I don't think we are a spectrum, for this purpose, the question is "what do you prefer A or B?" As a method of grouping and sorting. That is pretty clear. It doesn't ask if you like or use both A and B and how much.

LOL, there have been some pretty weird ideas in the past by psychologists. I don't think that we can trust that they are always (or even often?) right. Perhaps just "usually helpful"...

Psychology is a very new field, relatively speaking, with only a few areas well studied even today. Look at all the emerging studies on happiness, a pretty new topic for this field, overall.

That's true, but in order to discredit a personality test, you aim to discredit an entire profession that uses it? Despite it's vagueness, even you would have to admit that the Myers-Briggs isn't random.

Moonshadow, just the opposite, that just because a psychologist did not create it does not mean it is hocus pocus . In fact, in the 60's and 70's those psychologists were all about correcting abnormal behaviour, so keeping them out of MBTI is a good thing.

Matchweed, I don't think we are a spectrum, for this purpose, the question is "what do you prefer A or B?" As a method of grouping and sorting. That is pretty clear. It doesn't ask if you like or use both A and B and how much.

Cool, thankfully science doesn't care if you think we exist on a spectrum. It knows you do. Like I said above, it doesn't matter if you think the sun orbits the earth. The truth is just the opposite.

But it's not valid. Whether psychology is a hard science or not is irrelevant to the matter. The test is useless at predicting some behaviors.

Some behaviors, sure. MBPT is useless at predicting suicidal predisposition, as an example. That's not what it was designed to do. It was designed for, and is rather useful for, predicting which members of a corporate work group are most (and least) likely to get along without conflicts. It's just one tool. A hammer can't drive screws, don't expect one tool to do too much.

Quote

Did you not read the links? Essentially any particular person is really somewhere along a spectrum at any particular point in time, they may not be at the same point depending on their circumstances between tests. So what use is the test (assuming any validity) unless you're taking it to find out where you are at this instant?

Yes, it's a snapshot in time. People do change their personalities over time, but most don't change much. At least not much after maturity.

Quote

What your children are being taught and by whom doesn't matter. They can still be taught things that aren't real or true.

It was a personal anecdote, not a proof. I was taught many things in school that turned out to be false. So were you.

Quote

Being typed has little to do with understanding yourself. Understanding yourself requires self awareness and the ability to look at yourself in as objective of a manner as possible. Being assigned arbitrary categories may make you feel like you're fulfilling the first section of that but given you actually are not that arbitrary category but are a mutable collection of feelings and thoughts, in which the identification of and understanding how they arise is truer understanding, means Myers-Briggs is BS.

Myers-Briggs is only "BS" if you don't believe in statistical models. Myers-Briggs isn't proof of anything; it's based upon statistical correlation, which is not (by itself) evidence. But if my teenagers take it as a baseline, at least they have somewhere to start. If their self-awareness grows beyond the MB, great; but even the MB offers more self-awareness than most teenagers (and most adults) ever develop independently.

Quote

I'm a bit gung-ho on this matter because it's the equivalent of people saying the sun moves around the earth.

I think you expect too much of it, and when it doesn't live up to your expectations, you reject it's value. This is very black & white thinking. Ironic coming from a person who asserts that the MB is BS because it uses A-B polling to classify a person, and who complains that doesn't accurately reflect the personality spectrum. Who cares? Nobody said it would cure cancer.

Being typed has little to do with understanding yourself. Understanding yourself requires self awareness and the ability to look at yourself in as objective of a manner as possible. Being assigned arbitrary categories may make you feel like you're fulfilling the first section of that but given you actually are not that arbitrary category but are a mutable collection of feelings and thoughts, in which the identificatiom of and understanding how they arise is truer understanding, means Myers-Briggs is BS.

Myers-Briggs is only "BS" if you don't believe in statistical models. Myers-Briggs isn't proof of anything; it's based upon statistical correlation, which is not (by itself) evidence. But if my teenagers take it as a baseline, at least they have somewhere to start. If their self-awareness grows beyond the MB, great; but even the MB offers more self-awareness than most teenagers (and most adults) ever develop independently.

What does that even mean? Statistical model. What statistical model exactly? What correlation?

Being typed has little to do with understanding yourself. Understanding yourself requires self awareness and the ability to look at yourself in as objective of a manner as possible. Being assigned arbitrary categories may make you feel like you're fulfilling the first section of that but given you actually are not that arbitrary category but are a mutable collection of feelings and thoughts, in which the identificatiom of and understanding how they arise is truer understanding, means Myers-Briggs is BS.

Really? MBTI doesn't exist without statistics... Yes, it starts with a theory of what A-B matches to set up, and from there it is all surveys and data collection to generate statistics.

The official version cautions against using MBTI for employment filtering (by the student), yet many books and webpages do exactly that. Why? They ask thousands of people to complete the official MBTI and their work, and how satisfied they are, and then produce a book or statistical study. The authors set up those "about INTJ" phrases in different combinations, then ask (statistically) INTJ's for how close they are, that sort of thing.Myers-Briggs is only "BS" if you don't believe in statistical models. Myers-Briggs isn't proof of anything; it's based upon statistical correlation, which is not (by itself) evidence. But if my teenagers take it as a baseline, at least they have somewhere to start. If their self-awareness grows beyond the MB, great; but even the MB offers more self-awareness than most teenagers (and most adults) ever develop independently.

What does that even mean? Statistical model. What statistical model exactly? What correlation?